|
I found the mother whose child became her sole priority pretty realistic, actually. Some people get hit by parenthood pretty hard. edit - New page: I liked this movie, but it's the second most complex time travel movie I've ever seen. I feel like it would take me a few rewatches to catch all of this movie's own easter eggs... and that's a nod to careful, clever writing.... but as a movie consumer, I think a flick loses a little entertainment-value if it takes more than 2 viewings to catch the full meaning/intent of it. Still a solid B+ though. A good return to the theater, for me. GORDON fucked around with this message at 15:12 on Sep 6, 2020 |
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 15:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 04:34 |
|
|
Saw this movie yesterday and I have two thoughts about it. The first is maybe this would have been handled a bit better if instead of a big prestige Christopher Nolan movie is was like just some vehicle for Will Smith or Tom Crusie or something because I just had this impression that was what the script originally was. The first is now I can't stop thinking about the Red Dwarf episode Backwards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAsjfCq8GDU I honestly would have loved it if the movie has some reversed dialog that called you the viewer a loser when played foreward. David D. Davidson fucked around with this message at 15:20 on Sep 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 15:15
|
|
|
/\/\/\ Yeah half way through the movie I suddenly had an image of, what if this movie was Men in Black or Edge of Tommorow or something? It could have worked. I imagined one of those “3.45 pm, July 10th Mumbai” style information texts you get in action movie scene transitions to establish time and place and it would have been very corny and un-Nolan but would that have ruined the whole thing? A stream of thoughts The sound was bad like everyone was saying but the sheer audacity of having the characters exposit dialogue over a roaring catamaran engine as opposed to literally anywhere else made me want to punch the screen. The line where pattison explains that the bomb will annihilate everything and mom woman goes “including my son!” was hilarious in how corny it was. Yes mom woman, the annihilation of everything includes your only motivator thanks. It’s set up at the start with the munitions that you as a forward mover can pull backwards bullets back onto your gun by willing it so you think this is some neo learning to bend time shot that’s going to be a centrepiece of the action but it doesent really. I think almost every action scene afterwards is pure forward movers vs backward movers. Nolan needs another way to convey information beyond fast walk and talks. I didn’t get what was happening during the bungee scene, I thought it was an inverted rope but then pattinsons character only gets the time moving thing explained afterwards (of course he already knows, but then surely the protagonist knows he knows since they just did it?) Nolan has a way of eliding time and travel in most of his movies that’s super disorienting and in inception I assumed the point was to make it dreamlike but here it just works to the movies detriment. Sir Michael Caine playing a character called sir Michael was odd. Why didn’t they bring air masks into the vault they know is going to be lacking air? It’s not like they don’t have any Why did the protagonist try to shoot himself in the head at the point he’d surely figured he was fighting himself by now? Everything else can be explained as it being a frantic struggle but capping yourself in the head? Also if it’s been set up that touching yourself kills you the logical way to frame that scene would be lots of shots of the protagonist almost touching his bare skin to make that threat apparent. It really didn’t need to be mentioned if they’re not going to do anything with it. When the Algorithm was introduced I had flashbacks to watching Hideo Kojima cutscenes. The actual first time in the movie we see poo poo moving backwards is impressive In how dispassionately and unimpressively it’s framed. I read reviews before going in saying this movie was hard to follow and I scoffed because, reviewers dumb. But it’s not just that the conceit is inherently confusing there is something about it I found remarkably aggrivating. This movie could have either done the “explain everything twice for the slow members of the audience” kind of exposition or the “don’t explain much, just give the bare bones, keep it mysterious and leave it for the audience to put the clues together later” method. Instead it went for a rapid fire info dump that leaves you feeling like you should get it but you don’t. It felt like talking to a person who uses a lot of esoteric words in conversation and you feel like if you ask them to slow down they’ll sigh and give you a pitying look. Because they aren’t lying or hiding from you, the information is there just presented in an challenging way. massive spider fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Sep 6, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 15:22
|
|
|
The weird thing with Tenet is there's like an entire off-screen movie that happens, which we never see and is explained in like 30 seconds, and that off-screen movie is maybe even more interesting than what we do see. I hate to say it because I usually feel the opposite, but this really feels like it either should be an entire season of TV, or it should be like an hour longer. Which is a shame cause I think the meta-story is really awesome and this is maybe the most interesting premise of any of Nolan's movie's. But it's like you're watching the cliff-notes version, with 0 characterization. It really makes you appreciate how elegant and tightly balanced Inception was by comparison.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 16:58
|
|
|
I'm back from SA exile and if anybody liked this movie I'd bother updating the OP lol. Basically this is how I feel about the movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2MLU2S9i5Y
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 17:00
|
|
|
Everything between Oslo airport and Oslo airport would've been a kickass short film or TV episode, everything before was boring and everything after was chaotic nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 17:21
|
|
|
massive spider posted:a roaring catamaran engine massive spider posted:I didn’t get what was happening during the bungee scene, I thought it was an inverted rope massive spider posted:Why didn’t they bring air masks into the vault they know is going to be lacking air? It’s not like they don’t have any
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 19:57
|
|
|
pairofdimes posted:This is only in theaters right now right? Even in the US where theaters aren't open for the most part? I want to see this but I don't really want to get infected just for a movie. In MA, I was able to find an empty showing. My local theater has the movie playing every 15 minutes for hours. I just waited at the computer ticket dispenser and bought my ticket at the start of a show time no one was there for. I had zero interactions with people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 22:10
|
|
|
Neil was a much more interesting character and I wish he was the protagonist. John David Washington is a great actor and deserved an actual character.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2020 22:16
|
|
|
I feel like the "theaters only" release is going to backfire hard here. I went at 7pm Friday to a private screening (FYI, Cinemark is doing them and it's a great deal with 8+ friends) and the entire place was empty except for us.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 00:08
|
|
|
smoobles posted:I feel like the "theaters only" release is going to backfire hard here. I went at 7pm Friday to a private screening (FYI, Cinemark is doing them and it's a great deal with 8+ friends) and the entire place was empty except for us. I don’t know what WB’s strategy is here, but I can’t imagine they released it in the US without having a pretty good idea of what kind of numbers it would do. May be that it makes sense as a write-off for whatever reason, or that it made sense to get it out in the international market even at the expense of a meager domestic gross. General Dog fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Sep 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 00:12
|
|
|
Watched it a second time yesterday. (We've got odeon limitless, and the cinemas are basically empty). I did notice a few little details the second time, but not many. You see Neil's tag on his bag when he saves protagonist at the Opera at the start. You see that the wing mirror of the fast car that doesn't look fast is broken right from the start, until it's crashed into by a reverse time car, and then in the plane crash in Oslo, the first time round, you see Neil very briefly with the stretcher just after the engine explodes, and you see them leaving in the ambulance both times. (Both times, when it hadn't happened yet). that was really it though, so not like there are cool things to see the second time round. One thing I did like more on second viewing was the war scene. I dunno why, but it just clicked more, that it's not a war, it's actually a clandestine spy operation, with a massive distraction. Like, they're MEANT to be shooting wildly in the air, looking like bumbling idiots. Even the pincer. The whole thing is to make it look like they 'failed' to stop the algorithm being buried there. I dunno, it just felt a lot stronger, knowing that it had NOTHING to do with if they 'won' that battle or not. I think that's why it felt flat the first time, because you see a big war, you assume the stakes are winning the big war. But it's irrelevant, and we're told that. The stakes are the bomb we DONT see, the stuff that's prevented. It's unusual storytelling, for sure, but I liked it a lot better going in ready for it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 00:14
|
|
|
Another thing that ticked me off by being confusing : one of the key scenes revolves around the character Arepo, the forger. It's mentioned that Kat gets too close and he's exploited (?) that, or something. We never see Arepo and he's barely mentioned? It's pressed in as a serious plot point that Arepo is a THING but he never shows up! Was he Sator or a cut out? This movie needed to be streamlined for clarity, badly. There's all these dangly threads and the audio mix means you may only hear about the stuff that is not actually important
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 00:24
|
|
|
A few weeks ago I "broke" Dark, this time I prove Tenet is sloppy and poorly built with a simple experiment. Both Dark and Tenet are built on the same foundation, they are only different in appearance. Therefore... Tenet defeated Let’s take two devices, one that is wholly normal, and proceeds linearly through time, that we name Billy. The other instead is reversed, and we name it Tom. Billy, the linear time one, is equipped with a microphone, and programmed so that if it hears one beep, it activates a projector that shows the color red on a wall. If instead the microphone hears two beeps then the projector will show the color blue on the same wall. Tom, the one that is reversed, is instead equipped with a camera and a sound emitter. The camera is pointed at the wall of the first device, and Tom is programmed so that if the camera sees the color red on the screen, then the sound emitter will produce two beeps, if instead the camera sees blue, the emitter will produce one beep. Let’s establish then two discrete points in time. Time 1 and Time 2. They are labeled in linear order. So in common linear time first we have Time 1, and then Time 2 follows. Tom, in reverse, experiences Time 2 before Time 1. Summary: Billy (normal), one beep = red, two beeps = blue. Tom (reverse), red = two beeps, blue = one beep. Since Tenet establishes that the past cannot be changed, and everything is inscribed already in the same timeline, then it means Tom, at Time 2 will have to perceive a color, because it has always already also proceeded to Time 1 and emitted a sound. But of course this opens the contradiction because if it sees red, then it emits the two beeps that will cause Billy to project the color blue, and so Tom cannot see red, it sees blue. But if it sees blue at Time 2, then at Time 1 it will emit only one beep. Conclusion: this contradiction cannot be solved, because the fundamental principle Tenet is based on is flawed. Caveat: there’s a small loophole that can be exploited, and that wants that Billy doesn’t show anything, and Tom, not seeing anything on the wall, doesn’t emit anything. This can be easily patched up with an added rule that if Tom reaches Time 1 without the camera seeing a color, then it is programmed to emit either one or two beeps randomly. This makes sure than in all cases Tom will see a color at Time 2, and so won’t have to use the random function at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 05:00
|
|
|
!Klams posted:Watched it a second time yesterday. (We've got odeon limitless, and the cinemas are basically empty). I did notice a few little details the second time, but not many. You see Neil's tag on his bag when he saves protagonist at the Opera at the start. You see that the wing mirror of the fast car that doesn't look fast is broken right from the start, until it's crashed into by a reverse time car, and then in the plane crash in Oslo, the first time round, you see Neil very briefly with the stretcher just after the engine explodes, and you see them leaving in the ambulance both times. (Both times, when it hadn't happened yet). that was really it though, so not like there are cool things to see the second time round. Yeah I get what your saying, but maybe if it was easier to understand the debriefing instead of muddy loud woosh bang noises more people would get that. it took me a while to get why prptag was bleeding before they got to Oslo inverted; he was bleeding from the fight in normal time then after the encounter with himself. The shattered mirror from the car chase was, I thought, very good filmmaking where the camera angles used in the chase make it obvious for us to see but you also know why everyone else doesn't see it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 05:18
|
|
|
General Dog posted:I don’t know what WB’s strategy is here, but I can’t imagine they released it in the US without having a pretty good idea of what kind of numbers it would do. May be that it makes sense as a write-off for whatever reason, or that it made sense to get it out in the international market even at the expense of a meager domestic gross. if they wanted to convince people that consumerism is empty and self-destructive, convincing people to risk lives to see this might just be the best means at their disposal of course it's actually that wb is all idiots, which is what you get in a "meritocracy"
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 07:46
|
|
|
Was there any story benefit of not naming the protagonist or giving him any back story or motivations outside of doing his job?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 10:18
|
|
|
GoutPatrol posted:Yeah I get what your saying, but maybe if it was easier to understand the debriefing instead of muddy loud woosh bang noises more people would get that. Ah, yeah, I actually caught that one on first viewing, because at that point it's clear what's about to happen, and I thought that was a nice little nod, like it confirms it before the fact with a bit more time stuff, but that's another good one. I raised the Chekhov's Annihilation to my wife, and she made a decent point that It's kind of the predicate for the fight sequence. The first time we see it, the masked Protag seems to be attacking the regular, but when we see the scene inverted, you can see that he's just trying to avoid him, and it's fast and frantic and panicked BECAUSE he knows the dire consequences of touching him. I think it's a fair point. To the guy that 'destroyed' it with the beep test, one of your robots malfunctioned. Sorry. Yes, EVERY test. However, it needn't. It could actually just be that on the run forward it shows blue and on the run back red, apparently, because that happens in the film and it kind of annoyed me because it happens exactly once. When Sator catches the McGuffin box in the car, he first counts down from 3 to 1 implying he's going to kill Elizabeth Debicki. Only he's inverted, so what is ACTUALLY happening there, is he catches the box, then starts counting up 1, 2, 3, then drives off. Which is super weird. It only makes sense if he's seen this already and then does all the stuff he already knows happened to make sure it happens. Which, I mean, fair, he does ask the one dude to tell him everything and we see a temporal pincer car guy later, so, ok, he has perfect knowledge and he's just going through the motions. I guess. (Quick side point, Elizabeth's car that is going to crash is going backwards, implying it is inverted, only no one is in it to start it at the point of impact, so, it must actually be a regular car in reverse? Kind of odd. Maybe a misdirect, but like, wtf? Oh I guess it's so that the doors are pointing the right way for Sator to get in and out. Really really odd), anyway: When we then see Protag go back inverted, what Sator does is different. He gets out and sets fire to the car. He never does the 1,2,3 thing. You could argue that inverted Sator comes back later, (so it would be before the car chase happens in regular time) and there is a small fade to black, but the positioning of Sators car at that point suggests he stopped and got out to torch it instead, which just doesn't work. Maybe I'd have to see it again to confirm if Sator's car is facing the right way, otherwise, this is basically the only point in the movie where history changes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 10:44
|
|
|
Regarding the box test. I think its shown that time reversal creates unpleasant paradoxes, since the hypothemia thing means that anything that gets set on fire becomes frozen which superficially obsersves the laws of physics and heat transfer but makes no goddamn sense as to how it got frozen in the first place. Really you can explain a lot of errors by saying that its 'swimming against the tide' so of course there are going to be glitches and that includes the possibility of annihilation if things get too unstable. I think to function any time travel story basically has to throw its hands up at some point and go with the Dr Who 'wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff' answer. massive spider fucked around with this message at 12:33 on Sep 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 11:19
|
|
|
My brain couldn’t really understand the experience of driving a car in reverse. Could someone help me?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 12:06
|
|
|
The way for an inverted person to drive a non inverted car would be: you get in a car at the curb and put the car in reverse gear and depress the brake, the car moves forward gaining momentum until you depress the accelerator(from your POV). From the perspective of the people moving in regular time a backward man drives a car up in reverse gear, brakes at the curb and gets out walking backward. But the way the movies does it seems more like once you're in a car while inverted the car is also inverted so you just drive while pressing the accelerator in forward gear I guess. It does backwards car crashes just like a backwards bullet repairs bulletholes instead of makes them (except when it doesn't and kills people). I suppose you could justify it by saying that since the inversion method has something to do with 'radiation' then an inverted person is radiating some kind of field that makes things they touch also invert. But again we're getting into wibbley wobbly timey wimey style handwaving justifications here. massive spider fucked around with this message at 12:58 on Sep 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 12:45
|
|
|
Thank you. I’m not sure if that really helps me, but I appreciate the effort. The early scenes make it appear that using an inverted object takes concentration, but everything appears effortless from there. It would have helped me connect with the character/action to see him struggle a bit. Another question: during the rapid pace of the beginning, I missed how the protagonist chose to work with Neil in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 14:30
|
|
|
ghostwritingduck posted:Thank you. I’m not sure if that really helps me, but I appreciate the effort. The early scenes make it appear that using an inverted object takes concentration, but everything appears effortless from there. It would have helped me connect with the character/action to see him struggle a bit. We certainly see him struggle with the car, it screeches in fits and stops for a while before he gets it going properly, however it does so sort of in reverse, so it looks like he brings it to a stop then SUDDENLY accelerates off. Which is super weird, because, yeah, the car is in gear but going forwards not backwards, so... what? He doesn't actually choose to work with Neil, he just requests help getting into that building, and his contact says he's got someone for the job. Who his contact is isn't really explained, we're supposed to just assume an old CIA friend (he uses the friends at dusk call and response) and that actually is sort of another plot hole because... why would they know to call Neil? It should have been the guy from the boat, or someone obviously associated, the fact it's an old friend really messes things up?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 16:14
|
|
|
Neil just had to position himself to be the CIA guy on call that day.ghostwritingduck posted:The early scenes make it appear that using an inverted object takes concentration, but everything appears effortless from there. Remember the line from the instruction "don't think, feel" or something like that. It's based on intuition - so he certainly needs to concentrate to get the hang of it at first. Vir fucked around with this message at 16:20 on Sep 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 16:17
|
|
|
Vir posted:Neil just had to position himself to be the CIA guy on call that day. I mean, sure, with this kind of film you can just retcon anything, but it wouldn't be enough, it would have to be that Neil discovered who Protag had history with enough to call in that situation, befriend them and convince them of his ability to do that sort of thing so that he thinks of him first? And ok fine, so he did that (Neil is a delight!), but why from a script perspective is that the case? What would actually make more sense would be if Neil 'wasn't the guy he thought of and contacted, Neil just knew where Protag would be. And that could still be the case, but ... there's nothing to suggest that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 16:32
|
|
|
I'm sure he had plenty of time to form a bulletproof social engineering plan in the shipping container or whatever he used to get to the past
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 17:11
|
|
|
Also remember that Neil would have all the knowledge that the protagonist had about his own life and contacts. Only reason for a failure there is if they change the future too much so the information becomes irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
!Klams posted:To the guy that 'destroyed' it with the beep test, one of your robots malfunctioned. Sorry. Yes, EVERY test. However, it needn't. It could actually just be that on the run forward it shows blue and on the run back red, That's like magical intervention  It's like "there's a proof of something problematic, so I keep my eyes closed and refuse to acknowledge it."You can replace the two devices with two scientists, Billy in normal mode and Tom reversed. You tell Tom to look at a blackboard, see if there's the letter A or B, write what he sees on a notebook and show the notebook to Billy. Billy is instructed to look at Tom's notebook and write on the blackboard the opposite. If he sees A on the notebook he writes B on the blackboard and vice versa. Are the "minds" of the two scientists going to malfunction? I conceived this experiment back with Arrival. In that case the gimmick is interesting because there are no time-travel devices. This woman simply has "memories of the future", and we are still in "block universe" where everything's fixed, so she has no free will to change anything. Arrival, Watchmen, Dark, Tenet. Same story. With Arrival, and memories of the future, you simply make the woman sit in front of a scientist. The scientist asks the woman to predict the word the scientist will say next. To make things simple just give two options, like "sausage" or "lettuce". The scientist is instructed to hear what the woman says, then to actually say the other word. Contradicting her prevision. Then with Dark I thought about replacing the scientist with a computer. Give two input buttons A and B. Press A and the computer shows B on screen. Contradiction! Now with Tenet I replaced everything with devices, but I'm sure you can still go further and even use basic mechanics to create the same contradiction. I also proceeded in the other direction, because I thought the framework is wrong and only used these examples to offer intuitive proof. But the reason WHY these concepts are flawed is even more solid. All these are variations of the Grandfather Paradox and this paradox is founded on a specific element: recursion and self-reference. In classic time travel you go back and there's no real self-reference because there are parallel worlds. So instead of a closed loop you have a spiral, and the spiral continues to have its linear sense, so it avoids the contradiction. But whenever you have time-travel looping back directly to itself then you add the self-reference, it means that every recursion ADDS something to the system. This pattern is present for example in Godel's incompleteness theorem: the system cannot close because it produces infinite augmentations, with each recursion. The concept of block universe, time unchanged, works in the same way of Godel's incompleteness. It implies that the system reaches a final state and then "rests" (in Godel's case, the system is "complete"). It does its internal loops and then all is written permanently. But as Godel's incompleteness shows, with infinite recursion you have infinite regression. This means this theoretical system keeps cycling, recursively, without the possibility of ever reaching a final state. So it cannot close. And if it cannot close then it cannot be in a fixed state. It's an intrinsic problem of recursion and self-reference. Whenever you have time travel with one timeline then you have recursion + self-reference. That's why in Tenet you end up with duplicates. A protagonist going forward and one going backwards. Two protagonists. Ideally you can use the device to create infinite copies of yourself and populate the whole earth with them. What's important is: every time you have this type of recursion, you're adding information to the system. Therefore the system grows. You have one body, then two, then three... What I've done is to simply create a self-augmenting loop, like Godel's proof. If you play it out, in the original experiment, it's like the robot sees red, so produces the signal that will then produce blue, it loops back, sees blue and produces red... Over and over. Block universe postulates that this loop eventually reaches the end and from the point of view of an internal observer you see just its final state (like in Tenet the protagonists always fights himself). But with self-reference and recursion I can prove that the system loops infinitely, so it can never reach a final state. Therefore a block universe is impossible. Just like Godel's incompleteness. Or Liar Paradox. They are all about recursion and self-reference. They all infinitely cycle because with every loop the information in the system was changed. Time-travel is like adding time to the liar paradox. You read the line over and over, changing with each recursion. Endlessly. Abalieno fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Sep 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 18:33
|
|
|
Vir posted:Neil just had to position himself to be the CIA guy on call that day. It’s established, and then he appears to master it in that scene. I saw another poster that it showed him struggling to drive, but I think I was spending all of my brain power trying to understand how driving would work during that short moment. Introducing Neil as an assigned partner from the beginning would have helped as an entry point and wouldn’t have impacted the major plot moments. Neil has an actual emotional arc, and I think the movie could have been a masterpiece if it developed that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 18:50
|
|
|
By the way, please notice how in Tenet we have just two cases: 1- people who don't know what they are doing 2- people who deliberately replicate what they've seen, to not contradict it (see reverse interrogation example) How convenient is that? No one challenges the assumptions. Tenet is just a collection of scenes AVOIDING to test its concept. It introduces the theme of free will but then dodges it, like everything else. Keeping distracting you with trivialities and only carefully selecting what can be coherent. No one in Tenet has ever TESTED this device. They simply assume it works the way they think it works. Like a BELIEF. That's confirmation bias. You only look for confirmations and refuse to acknowledge everything else. It's not science, it's religion. Nolan knows, and as the typical illusionist instructs you not to look too closely, or you'd see the trick.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 18:55
|
|
|
Devs on FX discussed this issue only to sidestep it in a different way
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:That's like magical intervention No, you've got it the wrong way around. The point is, you're right, yes? It IS impossible for it to be both red and blue. And yet you DID do it, and you ARE going to do it, yes? So how can all these things be true? And that's the 'magic' of it, is that for both to be true, there HAS to be some fly in the ointment, every single time. One of the scientists passes out, or has a brain aneurysm. EVERY single time. Because that can happen, because there can be an out, there always is. There HAD to have been, it's the only explanation, and it DID happen, so there it was, every time.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 19:48
|
|
|
ghostwritingduck posted:My brain couldn’t really understand the experience of driving a car in reverse. Could someone help me? I don't understand this either, I don't think the movie bothered explaining it. My first theory was he just puts the car in reverse, so from his perspective it goes forward. But that falls apart because his car reverse-crashes in forward time, indicating it's inverted. So, I guess the car was inverted in the machine earlier and we didn't see it? Not much of the inversion mechanic holds together, especially considering the first time we see it is bullets firing backward into a normal gun via Protagonist's "intuition", something we never see used again as the rest of the movie consists of inverted people using inverted tech. IMO the whole movie would've played better as a perfect palindrome, the most satisfying segment was from Oslo to the turnstile and back to Oslo. It was just awesome closed-loop time travel with great visuals. I feel like a better script would've expanded on that, the first third and the last third were my least favorite part. smoobles fucked around with this message at 20:02 on Sep 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 19:55
|
|
|
!Klams posted:No, you've got it the wrong way around. The point is, you're right, yes? It IS impossible for it to be both red and blue. And yet you DID do it, and you ARE going to do it, yes? So how can all these things be true? And that's the 'magic' of it, is that for both to be true, there HAS to be some fly in the ointment, every single time. One of the scientists passes out, or has a brain aneurysm. EVERY single time. Because that can happen, because there can be an out, there always is. There HAD to have been, it's the only explanation, and it DID happen, so there it was, every time. I'm not right, I'm testing the hypothesis. The outcome says whether it's true or false. This is like: - I have a magical device, believe me. - No, let me see it, so that I'll know if it's truly magical or not. - Alright, here it is. The guy proceeds to shoot the inquirer in the head. - Yep, still magical... Those examples you list PREVENT the experiment to take place, they aren't the experiment. What you are saying is that nature constantly intervenes to prevent inquires. That's what a god might do, intervene and hide the hand. But it's not science.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 21:26
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:I'm not right, I'm testing the hypothesis. The outcome says whether it's true or false. Sorry, possibly I'm looking at this from a different angle, I thought you were trying to say that the movie was not internally consistent, which it is, not that the fake science doesn't really work, which it doesn't. Have I misunderstood? I might actually agree with you, lol. If you're talking about debunking the movies internal logic, it literally describes what you're saying, in much much simpler terms.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2020 22:50
|
|
|
That bad russian thought he was working within a loop in which he already won, but in fact his entire plan was contained in the loop and plan of the protagonist who had ACTUALLY already won. And it was kind of obvious since the world hadn't already ended, in the future .
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 00:01
|
|
|
It would have been cool to see a demonstration of the destructive power of the device in some way. Maybe show a single key leveling a building or something. Instead we know it’s dangerous because Sator said it was, the protagonist believed him and told everyone else, and they believed him and told the protagonist before Sator ever mentioned the plan.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 00:29
|
|
|
GORDON posted:That bad russian thought he was working within a loop in which he already won, but in fact his entire plan was contained in the loop and plan of the protagonist who had ACTUALLY already won. And it was kind of obvious since the world hadn't already ended, in the future . The world ends unless you're making the choice to stop people from loving it up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 01:06
|
|
|
massive spider posted:I think to function any time travel story basically has to throw its hands up at some point and go with the Dr Who 'wibbly wobbly timey wimey stuff' answer. Pretty much. Trying to explain that kind of narrative away with "future humans sent back a wormhole" or "Then it is deus  " is never satisfactory because it breaks inherent rules of our own existence, and of the universe as we perceive it. You can't "defeat" or explain an inherently implausible narrative device.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 03:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 04:34 |
|
|
Just saw it and absolutely loved it and don't really understand any of these criticisms lol I think someone summed it up best calling it a Hideo Kojima movie. It totally is. I guess that's not for everyone.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2020 09:57
|
|
